Tha Washington State Employment Security Department received a Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) from Confluent, a company listed on the Fortune 500 List of the largest U.S. companies, that they will be laying off 300+ employees when they close their Federal Way, WA location effective July 31, 2018.
Confluent mentioned in their May 9th earnings call that the company plans to part with it’s customer care businesses as part of the company’s future direction: “the standalone transactional call center work (is) something that we intend to divest.”
The Confluent website still lists openings in nearby Washington communities on their Careers page. Staff from the local Employment Security rapid response team and WorkSource center will perform outreach to employees of the organization to ease the transition.
There are several apps that are designed to assist those suffering from chronic pain, in one way or another. Many are pain trackers or diaries, some help identify and track triggers, others focus on sleep patterns or diet. One app, Curable, purports to help users regain control over pain through a biopsychosocial approach. The Curable website provides this description:
WHAT IS CURABLE?
Curable is an online program designed to address the emotional and psycological causes of chronic pain. The program includes:
A personal “smart coach” to guide the experience
Engaging, educational audio lessons
Guided meditations & visualizations
Expressive writing exercises
Brain training techniques
24/7 access across desktop & mobile
When talking with clients about their doubt that a recommended treatment plan will actually relieve their pain, I often encourage them to try it by asking how much better life could be if they had 10% less pain, or 20% less pain. Most would agree that even a little relief would still be a relief.
Based on user surveys conducted through the app after 30 days of use, 71% reported some level of pain relief, while 29% reported no reduction in pain. With a 30-day free trial, it seems that Curable may be worth giving a try.
The Port of Seattle, City of SeaTac, and IAC Properties broke ground June 7th on a 26-acre underdeveloped property to create a 460,000 square foot light industrial facility that will employ approximately 400 full time workers. Tenants may include food processors, manufacturers, and logistics providers that support the aviation and air cargo industries.
Located just north of the Des Moines Creek Business Park (DMCBP) in the City of Des Moines, this 25.62-acre undeveloped property is zoned Aviation Commercial (AVC) and will expand upon the success of the industrial development at the DMCBP. It will also represent the first new industrial development on Port property in the City of SeaTac in many years.
The purpose of developing Des Moines Creek-North is to put the property back into productive use that supports both the City’s tax-base and is compatible with airport operations.
Photo Credit: Port of Seattle
Photo Details: Mayor, City of SeaTac, Michael Siefkes; Port of Seattle Director of Real Estate and Economic Development, Jeffrey Utterback; Port of Seattle Executive Director, Stephen P. Metruck; Port of Seattle Director of Aviation Facilities and Capital programs, Jeffrey Brown; Port of Seattle Managing Director, Economic Development Division, Dave McFadden; and Port of Seattle Aviation Director Lance Lyttle attended the groundbreaking for a new light industrial facility in Des Moines.
The Washington Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation (FACE) Program* has published a new Fatality Narrative. The new narrative describes an incident where a warehouse worker was killed when he was crushed by the forks of a laser guided forklift. This Special Topic Fatality Narrative was published because the incident and the unique hazards associated with emerging automation are relevant to most industries. These reports describe work-related fatal incidents and list some requirements and recommendations that might have prevented the incident from occurring. We hope that they are used for formal or informal educational opportunities to help prevent similar incidents.
For your convenience, a slideshow version with more photos and details is also available.
*The FACE Program is partially funded by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH grant# 5 U60 OH008487-11) and the Safety and Health Assessment and Research for Prevention (SHARP) Program at the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries. The contents of the Fatality Narratives are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of NIOSH.
As of June 7, 2018, in Washington State, employees are legally required to receive equal pay and career advancement opportunities, regardless of gender. The changes are a result of the Equal Pay Opportunity Act, sponsored by Rep. Tana Senn and signed into law by Gov. Jay Inslee in March. The new regulations update Washington’s equal pay law, which was established in 1943.
The law has several elements that require employers to provide equal compensation to “similarly employed” workers along with equal opportunities for career advancement, regardless of gender.
Under the law, “similarly employed” means workers for the same employer doing work under similar conditions with similar skills, effort and responsibility.
“There is still a lot of work remaining to achieve true pay and opportunity equity for women in the workforce,” Inslee said. “This bill tears away the ability of companies to shroud salary and promotion decisions in secrecy. This makes it possible for employees to discuss how those decisions are being made without fear of retaliation.”
Along with equal pay and opportunity, the new law states that employers cannot stop workers from disclosing their wages to others, or require workers to sign non-disclosure agreements about their wages.
The law also protects workers from retaliation and firing for talking about wages with coworkers, and for asking the employer to provide a reason for the employee’s wage or lack of opportunity for advancement.
The Washington State Department of Labor & Industries (L&I) is tasked with enforcing the new measure. That includes taking complaints and investigating potential violations.
“Gender discrimination at work just shouldn’t happen. All workers should expect equal pay for equal work,” said L&I Director Joel Sacks. “This law gives us the authority to investigate and take action if needed, and we’re ready to do that.”
Employees can file complaints with L&I about gender discrimination at work. The agency will investigate complaints, and can charge employers fines, damages and interest when violations are found. Employees can also take legal action against an employer.
For more information about the new law or to file a complaint, go to www.Lni.wa.gov/EqualPay or contact L&I’s Employment Standards program at 360-902-4930 or esgeneral@Lni.wa.gov.
On June 5th, Brian visited our neighbors upstairs at GLP Attorneys to discuss workers’ compensation topics with members of their firm. Although our firms practice in different areas of the law, there are certain cases where our workers’ compensation focus overlaps with GLP’s cases, including personal injury cases involving automobile accidents, logging accidents or premises liability scenarios.
We appreciate the opportunity to collaborate. If you are interested in a similar presentation, please contact Brian to discuss your needs.
“Thanks for the great presentation today. Super helpful and the cites to case law are good resources, especially for some of our firm’s newer attorneys. I have already received good comments from staff that they learned a lot today. Really appreciate your work, and always enjoy working with you and your firm.”
Pictured above: Brian Wright with Alex French, John Webber and James Gooding of GLP Attorneys, P.S.
Today’s post comes from guest author Charlie Domer, from The Domer Law Firm.
Temporary Help Employees Can Sue Their Employers? …. Well, maybe not.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals considered the following issue: can a temporary help employee who was injured at work elect not to pursue a worker’s compensation claim and, instead, actually sue their employer in civil court? The Court said the answer is “YES.”
Wait….what?! That is not how the worker’s compensation system was supposed to work. Cue panic mode for employers who used temporary help employees. (or at least until the legislature “fixed” this).
The necessary background (and backbone) of the worker’s compensation system is the 100+ year old “grand bargain” between employers and employees. Employers agreed to provide smaller, defined benefits regardless of fault for the work injury, while employees gave up the right to tort damages (like pain and suffering) in exchange for those benefits. Thus, worker’s compensation became the worker’s exclusive remedy against the employer. A worker cannot sue their employer (or co-worker) for a work injury.
That exclusive remedy also extends to temporary help agency situations. Under the traditional interpretation of the worker’s compensation act, a temporary help employee is barred from any tort lawsuit against their employing temporary help agency and against the employer where they were placed/working. This was the interpretation…or so we thought.
In Estate of Carlos Esterley Cerrato Rivera v. West Bend Mutual Ins Co., the Court of Appeals allowed a temporary help employee’s tort lawsuit to proceed against the placed employer. The case arose from tragic and slightly convoluted facts. Three temporary help employees all died in a motor vehicle accident. All three were driving in the same car and performing services for Alpine Insulation (insured by West Bend Mutual). Mr. Rivera was a temporary help employee of Alex Drywall, who sent him to work for Alpine Insulation. Alpine, in turn, paid Alex Drywall for the services. The driver, whose negligence resulted in the accident, was also a temporary help employee, but of another employer.
Mr. Rivera’s estate did not pursue a claim for worker’s compensation death benefits. The estate instead sued the placed employer, Alpine Insulation, in circuit court for tort damages. Alpine and West Bend Mutual argued that the work comp exclusive remedy protects them from these types of lawsuits.
[Note: the facts are unclear about whether there was an “election” not to pursue a work comp claim. There could have been difficulties by the work comp carrier in determining if there were any eligible surviving dependents. There also could have been issues involving establishing the employment relationship with Alex Drywall. This is mere speculation, but it is interesting to think about how the case genesis]
The Court of Appeals interpreted the relevant statutes to allow the tort suit to proceed! Specifically, Section 102.29(6)(b)1. says that “no employee of a temporary help agency who makes a claim for compensation may make a claim … in tort against … any employer that compensates the temporary help agency for the employee’s services.” The Court ruled that because Rivera’s estate had never pursued a worker’s compensation claim, the statute actually allowed the tort suit.
Based on the immediate outrage and backlash in the employer community (and specifically the massive amount of employers who use temporary help employees), the Wisconsin legislature moved swiftly to “fix” this perceived loophole in the law. The legislature passed 2017 Wisconsin Act 139 (effective March 1, 2018). The Act amended the governing statutes in Section 102.29 to now state that “no employee of a temporary help agency who has the right to make a claim for compensation may make a claim … in tort against … any employer that compensates the temporary help agency for the employee’s services.”
Accordingly, for a fleeting moment, it appeared injured temporary help employees could elect to forego a work comp claim and maintain a civil lawsuit against their placed employers for pain and suffering. The legislature effectively restored and reiterated the exclusive remedy provision in temporary help agency situations. If a temporary help employee is injured on the job, worker’s compensation remains their only recourse against the temporary help employer and their placed employer.
Today’s post comes from guest author Jon Rehm, from Rehm, Bennett & Moore.
Teachers in West Virginia won a victory for working people recently after a nine-day strike forced lawmakers and their Governor to raise the pay of all public employees by 5 percent, agree to fix problems with the state’s health insurance system and maintain other employee protections.
The victory for the West Virginia teachers came shortly after many pundits predicted the downfall of public sector unions in the wake of an expected unfavorable decision from the Untied States Supreme Court in the Janus case. Many commentators pointed out that West Virginia was already a “right to work” state where unions can not compel the employees they represent to pay dues.
The West Virginia teachers strike shows the power of collective action among employees. I have long advocated that employees exercise their rights under the National Labor Relations Act to work together to address the terms and conditions of their employment. Employees don’t need a union to exercise these rights. Collective action on the job can address bullying by a boss and can even help employees accommodate a disability.
The success of the West Virginia teachers seems to have encouraged teachers in Oklahoma to plan a strike as well. The example of the West Virginia teachers should also show employees that they can deal with smaller but no less serious issues with their employer or on their worksite.
Today’s post comes from guest author Catherine Stanton, from Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano.
Some of you may recall that injured workers and their families were used as political scapegoats by big business and insurance interests who blamed them for the high cost of doing business in New York. Workers’ Compensation benefits became an easy target as those who needed these benefits were hardly in a position to fight against the deep pockets and political clout of these lobbying groups.
As a result of political pressure during New York State budget negotiations, there was a direction to update the existing impairment guidelines under the guise of reducing costs to employers while still protecting injured workers. The final budget contained a provision directing the Workers’ Compensation Board (WCB) to put together a task force with input from labor, the insurance industry, medical providers, and the NYS Business Council to revise impairment guidelines to reflect “advances in modern medicine that enhance hearings and result in better outcomes”. These impairment guidelines determine the amount of compensation payable to an injured worker for a permanent injury.
Unfortunately for injured workers, the WCB unilaterally revamped and rewrote the guidelines and released them during a holiday weekend with a 45-day public comment period. These proposed guidelines bore very little resemblance to the recommendations made by labor groups and the Orthopedic Society, and were an outrageous abuse of power. As a result of a very public outcry, the New York State Assembly Labor Committee held a public hearing during which it became very clear to labor groups, injured workers’ advocates, and members of the State Legislature that the Board’s egregious actions would result in a slashing of benefits to injured workers at a time when they are most vulnerable.
Public outcry led to action. Workers’ advocates showed up at a number of WCB locations across the state, including Hauppauge, Brooklyn, and Buffalo, for Days of Action. More than 100,000 postcards objecting to the proposed changes were delivered. Members of the Retail Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU), the AFL-CIO, NYCOSH, New York City District Council of Carpenters, DC37, and countless others all publicly railed against these changes. Members of the Legislature called out the WCB for overstepping its authority and for proposing changes that would vastly favor the Business Council over the injured worker.
The Worker’s Comp Board subsequently issued amended revisions, and while there are still some reductions, it was a significant improvement over the initial version. The final version was released last year on December 29. It is clear that grassroots efforts sometimes do work. Governor Cuomo and the WCB Chair clearly listened, and for that we are grateful. We are also grateful to those State legislators, union groups, and medical providers who submitted their insight on the impact the original proposals would have on injured workers.
Lastly, it is clear that those who may have been past or current recipients of Workers’ Compensation benefits – those who have known injured workers or those who just saw an injustice and wanted to help right a wrong – took the time to make a phone call, send a letter, or sign a petition. The outpouring of support took many by surprise, including those interests that were financed by big business groups. One of my favorite quotes is from Margaret Mead, an American cultural anthropologist, who said, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” Truer words were never spoken.
Catherine M. Stanton is a senior partner in the law firm of Pasternack Tilker Ziegler Walsh Stanton & Romano, LLP. She focuses on the area of Workers’ Compensation, having helped thousands of injured workers navigate a highly complex system and obtain all the benefits to which they were entitled. Ms. Stanton has been honored as a New York Super Lawyer, is the past president of the New York Workers’ Compensation Bar Association, the immediate past president of the Workers’ Injury Law and Advocacy Group, and is an officer in several organizations dedicated to injured workers and their families. She can be reached at 800.692.3717.
